Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context about the returned fields, but does not disclose rate limits, data freshness, or failure behavior beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The purpose and returned fields are front-loaded and easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only lookup with no output schema, the description lists the key return values and identifies the agency source. A minor gap remains around the fact that all three inputs are optional and that at least one of location or lat/lon must be supplied.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains lat, lon, and location in detail. The description only broadly indicates address or coordinate input, matching the baseline for high schema coverage without adding much beyond it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action and resource: FEMA flood zone designation lookup for an address or coordinate. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling FEMA NFHL inventory tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'for an address or coordinate,' but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus adjacent tools such as fema_nfhl_search_inventory, disaster_history_summary, or location_risk_report. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.